Panetta admits Iran not developing nukes

[Sub-Husker]

I'm no military strategist, but if I knew a single (or possibly 18) Ohio Class sub(s) could be sitting off my coast with 154 nuclear tip Tomahawk missiles (or even a measly 14 Trident II s). I might be given reason to consider my next move. Technology is cool, but power is influence.

 

The use of one nuke may set off a world chain reaction of retaliation, we will only use nukes as a last resort. Most world leaders realize this.

 

The real threat of the Ohios and Virginias are their ability to act as a strategic deterrent. While they can fire conventional cruise missiles, surface ships can do that too.

 

The principal battlefield right now is attack missile vs anti-missile capabilities. Radars are becoming more sophisticated, and a main reason for our network of world-wide bases is for setting up radars, and potentially ABM sites. Our Aegis system is the best in the world, but it is sea-based only. We are aggressively working on a land-based system to be rolled out in 2015.

 

Another battlefield is in software, I’m sure you’ve heard of Stuxnet.

 

I am not convinced that the US has a moral right to stop any country from obtaining the tools it deems necessary to ensure its ends, but I'm not sure we can afford not to. Certainly, by our inaction the US will encourage Iran to act in its own self interest. The question is this: will Iran's development of this weapon threaten US interests and, if so, are we willing to pay the price to act?

 

Further, are we willing to pay the price of inaction?

 

That is a very valid question. Both the cost of action and of inaction need to be weighed.

 

What was the cost of action in Iraq, was it worth it?

 

What about Afghanistan? Surely we needed to act, but did we continue to do so appropriately after the Taliban gov’t was toppled?

 

Was the attack on Libya justified?

 

Should we attack Syria or Iran, and what would the REAL justifications be?

[Cactusboy]

Iran shouldn't be able to get nuke weapons...but on the same note...there should be no nukes anywhere in that region. We should be working towards getting rid of them all..but we are opposed to doing that. Our own guys/intelligence/miltary even say Iran would be crazy to NOT try to get a nuke weapon. If all your "enemies" around you have them you would be crazy to not try to get one yourself. I hope we can all at least agree that the entire region should be nuke free...

 

There will be a time when the USA is no longer the super power and whoever is might think that we should no longer have nukes. Getting rid of our nukes would be incredibly stupid. Nukes=power and since China's army is twice the size of our own we rely on technology to reign superior. Even when China catches up that will no longer be reliable to stay superior. I hate to say it but if we could rid of our nukes it would only be a matter of time before we would get overrun.

 

I didn't say China or the US....just the region.

[Cactusboy]

There will be a time when the USA is no longer the super power and whoever is might think that we should no longer have nukes. Getting rid of our nukes would be incredibly stupid. Nukes=power and since China's army is twice the size of our own we rely on technology to reign superior. Even when China catches up that will no longer be reliable to stay superior. I hate to say it but if we could rid of our nukes it would only be a matter of time before we would get overrun.

 

We rely on high tech weapons, not nukes.

 

China fears our army, navy and air force more than anything else.

 

Nukes are the international counterbalance to American high tech weapon superiority.

 

It was the threat of Russian nukes that disuaded the US not to aid Georgia in August of 2008.

 

I'm no military strategist, but if I knew a single (or possibly 18) Ohio Class sub(s) could be sitting off my coast with 154 nuclear tip Tomahawk missles (or even a measley 14 Trident II s). I might be given reason to consider my next move. Technology is cool, but power is influence.

 

I am not convinced that the US has a moral right to stop any country from obtaining the tools it deems neccessary to ensure it's ends, but I'm not sure we can afford not to. Certainly, by our inaction the US will encourage Iran to act in it's own self interest. The question is this: will Iran's developement of this weapon threaten US interests and, if so, are we willing to pay the price to act?

Further, are we willing to pay the price of inaction?

 

and it's does no good to keep threatening Iran...which FTR is a breach of the UN Charter. It's almost like we are attempting a self-fullfilling propecy.

[T_O_Bull]

 

 

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta let slip on Sunday the big open secret that Washington war hawks don’t want widely known: Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

 

 

Appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Panetta admitted that despite all the rhetoric, Iran is not pursuing the ability to split atoms with weapons, saying it is instead pursuing “a nuclear capability.”

 

That “capability” falls in line with what Iran has said for years: that it is developing nuclear energy facilities, not nuclear weapons.

 

“I think the pressure of the sanctions, the diplomatic pressures from everywhere, Europe, the United States,

elsewhere, it’s working to put pressure on them,” Panetta explained on Sunday. “To make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”

 

Republicans have been beating the drums of war in recent weeks as tensions in the Iranian gulf have soared. Iran has threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil transport hub crucial to global industry, if U.S. warships return to monitor their activities.

 

Iran said it was planning to hold military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz in the coming weeks, and prior wargames saw the Iranians test missiles that are designed to sink warships.

 

http://www.rawstory....veloping-nukes/

 

If you believe that Iran is not intent on producing a nuclear weapons... well all I can say is, "I have this bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale." I mean, my God the Iranian leader thinks the holocost never happened.

T_O_B

[Excel]

I don't know about Iran but I myself am currently developing nuclear weapons in conjunction with the terrestrial construction phase of my low orbit space station. I also have a sweet pinebox derby car in the works, I'm making significantly more progress on that project at the moment however...been having a bit of trouble finding investors for the other two. Seems not too many multi-billionare venture capitalists are impressed with my garage skunkworks...and here I am trying to create jobs...damn one per-centers...

 

 

[NOTE TO ANY FBI, NSA AND IAEA INSPECTORS: BADGERFAN IS NOT ACTUALLY DEVELOPING OR SEEKING TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS. HE FAILED HIGH SCHOOL CALCULUS AND RETAINS AN IRRATIONAL CHILDHOOD PHOBIA ASSOCIATED WITH ERECTOR SETS. CLEARLY NO INVESTIGATION OR ARREST IS NECESSARY]

[Sub-Husker]

If you believe that Iran is not intent on producing a nuclear weapons... well all I can say is, "I have this bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale." I mean, my God the Iranian leader thinks the holocost never happened.

 

If you belive that what you had written is an accurate translation of Ahmadinejad's words... then chance are that you believe that you own a few bridges.

 

Iran is probably a bit more intent on producing nuclear weapons than Turkey, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, but is technologically further behind, and under much more of an external threat.

[T_O_Bull]

If you believe that Iran is not intent on producing a nuclear weapons... well all I can say is, "I have this bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale." I mean, my God the Iranian leader thinks the holocost never happened.

 

If you belive that what you had written is an accurate translation of Ahmadinejad's words... then chance are that you believe that you own a few bridges.

 

Iran is probably a bit more intent on producing nuclear weapons than Turkey, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, but is technologically further behind, and under much more of an external threat.

Pull your head out of your annal canal. Read the post over and over and try to figure out what I was saying.

T_O_B

[Sub-Husker]

Pull your head out of your annal canal. Read the post over and over and try to figure out what I was saying.

 

That seems to be where your post is located.

 

You seem like the type that reads often repeted memes and spews them as truth.

 

Can you source the translation you quoted, or will you continue with scat-related posts?

[Cactusboy]

 

 

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta let slip on Sunday the big open secret that Washington war hawks don’t want widely known: Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

 

 

Appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Panetta admitted that despite all the rhetoric, Iran is not pursuing the ability to split atoms with weapons, saying it is instead pursuing “a nuclear capability.”

 

That “capability” falls in line with what Iran has said for years: that it is developing nuclear energy facilities, not nuclear weapons.

 

“I think the pressure of the sanctions, the diplomatic pressures from everywhere, Europe, the United States,

elsewhere, it’s working to put pressure on them,” Panetta explained on Sunday. “To make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”

 

Republicans have been beating the drums of war in recent weeks as tensions in the Iranian gulf have soared. Iran has threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil transport hub crucial to global industry, if U.S. warships return to monitor their activities.

 

Iran said it was planning to hold military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz in the coming weeks, and prior wargames saw the Iranians test missiles that are designed to sink warships.

 

http://www.rawstory....veloping-nukes/

 

If you believe that Iran is not intent on producing a nuclear weapons... well all I can say is, "I have this bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale." I mean, my God the Iranian leader thinks the holocost never happened.

T_O_B

 

 

You mean Iran's President who has no power to make any attack on anyone.

[Sub-Husker]

Can you source the translation you quoted, or will you continue with scat-related posts?

 

Perhaps this link will help TO Bull understand what he thought he was trying to say:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

[Cactusboy]

Can you source the translation you quoted, or will you continue with scat-related posts?

 

Perhaps this link will help TO Bull understand what he thought he was trying to say:

 

http://en.wikipedia....ejad_and_Israel

 

 

So he doesn't deny the holocaust...he says the Jews were killed.

 

"In the second World War, over 60 million people lost their lives. They were all human beings. Why is it that only a select group of those who were killed have become so prominent and important?"

 

I know some question the number that were killed and think it's been inflated. There is a book on the holocaust that looks interesting, but I'm almost afraid to buy it because I'm sure there are many knee jerk reactions made when people see it. Even though the author is Jewish and lost most of his family in the holocaust.

 

 

 

 

 

Synopsis

 

It was not until the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, when Israel's evident strength brought it into line with US foreign policy, that memory of the Holocaust began to acquire the exceptional prominence it enjoys today. Leaders of America's Jewish community were delighted that Israel was now deemed a major strategic asset and, Finkelstein contends, exploited the Holocaust to enhance this new-found status. Their subsequent interpretations of the tragedy are often at variance with actual historical events and are employed to deflect any criticism of Israel and its supporters.

 

Recalling Holocaust fraudsters such as Jerzy Kosinski and Binjamin Wilkomirski, as well as the demagogic constructions of writers like Daniel Goldhagen, Finkelstein contends that the main danger posed to the memory of Nazism's victims comes not from the distortions of Holocaust deniers but from prominent, self-proclaimed guardians of Holocaust memory. Drawing on a wealth of untapped sources, he exposes the double shakedown of European countries as well as legitimate Jewish claimants, and concludes that the Holocaust industry has become an outright extortion racket. Thoroughly researched and closely argued, The Holocaust Industry is all the more disturbing and powerful because the issues it deals with are so rarely discussed.

 

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Holocaust-Industry/Norman-G-Finkelstein/e/9781859844885?itm=1&usri=the+holocaust+industry

[Blaze1up]

Seiously whats Iran going to do with a nuke much the same as Pakistan, North Korea, China, and Russia would do with it, nothing. Creating fear starts the war. The power of the military industrial complex is a machine that wants to go to war for profit.

[Cactusboy]

If you think everyone should own a gun...because then everyone will behave if they think everyone has a gun....don't you also have to think every country should have a nuke?

[Sub-Husker]

Seiously whats Iran going to do with a nuke much the same as Pakistan, North Korea, China, and Russia would do with it, nothing. Creating fear starts the war. The power of the military industrial complex is a machine that wants to go to war for profit.

 

Nuclear weapons serve as a strategic deterrent, meaning that with the proper systems in place that they are gauranteed a retaliatory strike.

 

The US, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel and India can survive a first strike and be able to retaliate.

 

Nations like Pakistan and North Korea would rely more on conventianal weapond for retaliation, and the same would go for Iran, Turkey, Saudi or Egypt should they get nuclear weapons.

[Sub-Husker]

If you think everyone should own a gun...because then everyone will behave if they think everyone has a gun....don't you also have to think every country should have a nuke?

 

Pakistan was very close to making a nuclear first strike on India during the Kargil War during the 90s.

 

Fidel Castro would have fired nukes at the US in 1960, if he had his fingers on the buttons.

 

Not everyone should have nukes.

 

However there would have been far less wars if everone did have them, such as Iraq, Libya and now Syria.